Article excerpt

For generations, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 has been
instrumental in making the promise of our democracy a reality for
millions of citizens. Today, the Supreme Court will consider the
constitutionality of Section 5 of the Act one of the most effective
civil rights tools in our nations history in the case Shelby
County, Alabama v. Holder. After a year where politicians
manipulated voting laws for their own benefit, the Court must uphold
this protection and safeguard every Americans fundamental right to
vote.

Section 5 requires certain states and jurisdictions with
documented histories of denying minority voting-rights to gain
approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before
changing voting procedures. This preclearance process is designed to
ensure the changes do not discriminate against minority voters,
either intentionally or unintentionally. Shelby County, a largely
white suburb of Birmingham, filed suit in 2010, claiming Section 5
is unconstitutional because it hurts states rights.

Opponents of the law say it is unfair for some states to have to
follow these rules. But the Supreme Court rejected this argument
shortly after the Act was originally enacted in 1965. In total, four
separate Court decisions have upheld the Act through the decades,
and in 2006, Congress voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize it.

Opponents also argue the law is no longer necessary that
discrimination in our electoral process is a thing of the past. But
the recent push to restrict voting, which came heavily in
jurisdictions covered by Section 5, proves them wrong.

In 2011 and 2012, 19 states passed more than two-dozen measures
that would have effectively made it harder to vote, the biggest
rollback in voting rights since the Jim Crow era. These measures
included voter ID laws, early-voting cutbacks, and curbs on
community-based voter registration drives all of which imposed
burdens on minority voters.

The Brennan Center for Justice and other voting-rights advocates
fought back. Citizens rejected these laws at the polls, nearly a
dozen courts overturned or weakened restrictive measures, and the
Department of Justice blocked others. In the end, far fewer voters
were affected by the voting-law changes than initially predicted.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was instrumental in protecting
these votes.

For example, last year, the Department of Justice opposed a Texas
law demanding strict photo identification that many eligible
Americans do not have. In late August 2012, the reviewing federal
court agreed, denying Texas preclearance for the change because the
voter ID law would have negatively impacted minority voters. A
federal court also refused to preclear the legislatures
redistricting plan, finding the new lines intentionally
discriminated against minorities. Because of Section 5, Texas could
not implement these measures. …